Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

judgecorp writes "The city of San Francisco has abandoned a law proposed in 2010 which would have required mobile phones to be labelled with their radiation level. Mobile phone industry body the CTIA fought the bill in court, arguing that there is not enough evidence of harm. The city is not convinced phones are safe — it says its decision to abandon the law is simply based on the legal costs."

There has not been a larger increase in head cancers over the past thirty years despite a more than billion-fold increase in mobile phone use. This means that if there is an effect, it is too small to worry about.

I can't figure out what is good and bad data with this topic. Seems like everything I read is spin.

Luckily, now that the labeling has been abandoned, you don't know your dosage level anyway, so no need to worry!

Honestly, that's what most annoys me about these sorts of cases(this, GMO labelling, 'organic' labeling, etc.) The evidence for harm or harmlessness is often rather equivocal; but the relevant trade association pressure groups scream like babies at the idea that customers would even be in the position to make an informed decision(foolish or otherwise).

Honestly, that's what most annoys me about these sorts of cases(this, GMO labelling, 'organic' labeling, etc.) The evidence for harm or harmlessness is often rather equivocal; but the relevant trade association pressure groups scream like babies at the idea that customers would even be in the position to make an informed decision(foolish or otherwise).

Because it's ludicrous. Consider the same idea applied to a packaged cookie: "our whole wheat cookies contain less than 0.0001% arsenic, less than 1 picogram of lead, fewer than 15 anthrax spores per cookie, no more than 150 million viable microbes, below 72,000,000 mold spores," etc. The world is filled with trace amounts of stuff that humanity has ingested since the dawn of our species. It's only recently that we've even been able to recognize and measure it. And those are scientifically proven harmful i

You are right - we should let any nutjob group put useless information on our products. Each cell phone can come with a 50-page list of grievances. PETA can put whether animals were used in it's production. Al Gore can slap the carbon footprint on there. Greenpeace can list the natural resources used on there, and score the phone for it's environmental impact. UNICEF can score it for child welfare. Then of course, you will have religious groups who want to score it for thetan count and whatnot. (Thank you,

Sure let churches put labels on the phones. Soon enough the iPhone will have a catholic church buddy Jesus on the side, and all android phones will be rated 4 or 5 Satans (of course they will reserve the 10 Satan rating for windows phones).
your just advocating to hand more power over to apple.

Well, given that the SAR numbers are already required to be calculated for the handset to pass FCC approval, and the FCC already has an SAR limit for sale-able devices, it seems like mandating that the numbers be included in the documentation(rather than by grabbing the FCC ID and grovelling through the documents pertaining to the device's approval process) seems like it would be a pretty painless addition...

Obviously, there are an arbitrary number of variables you could theoretically demand a label for; bu

Obviously, there are an arbitrary number of variables you could theoretically demand a label for; but this is one that is already computed, already available, and apparently of some public interest, which would seem to make it a not-illogical choice if the people of a municipality so decide.

I, for one, am glad that the court system can be used to keep the majority from making arbitrary rules.

"The city of San Francisco once again vowed to remain steadfast in their commitment to ignorance, but today acknowledged that, because so many people have refused to remain as stupid as they are, the list of like-minded idiots willing to agree with them has plummeted to the point where creating an effective scare tactic campaign is well beyond their admittedly meager level of competence.

I slightly disagree. Radio waves can cause thermal heating in human tissue (close enough to the emitter, if there's high enough power), and heat exposed cells can exhibit DNA damage (not sure what the threshold is). I don't think you can say radio waves are utterly incapable of damaging DNA, in broad general terms. Although I haven't seen enough specific data on cellphones in this regard, I don't expect the effects to be significant.

There's been some hard (but inconclusive) science to possibly confirm this, too. An experiment was performed where a control subject stayed in the house, and a test subject went outside without a hat, in the daytime. The test subject reported a warm feeling, somehow coming down from above. Each subject's body temperature was measured with a thermometer, but they were the same. I don't know what it all means, but I think there ought to be a label on "outside" until we understand this radiation phenomenon better.

Another test was done where the subject went out for a "brisk walk". This caused adverse physiological reactions including increased heart rate, increased breathing rate and sweating, especially on an uphill part of the trajectory. We recommend immediate banning of hills in places where people are likely to walk.

In other tests it was also found that holding a piece of plastic to your ear for a period of time caused a localized warming effect.

I slightly disagree. Radio waves can cause thermal heating in human tissue (close enough to the emitter, if there's high enough power),

Exactly.

Cell phones don't have enough power to cause significant heating.

It turns out that the body is very well adapted for cooling. The circulatory system is a good heat exchanger; it takes a lot of input to overload. Going outside on a 90 degree (F) day, maybe. Lying in the sun and absorbing a kilowatt per square meter, maybe. A one-watt (average transmit power) cell phone, no.

There is one exception to the fact that the cooling system of the body regulates the temperature, actually, the one place the blood vessels don't reach: the lens of the eye. You can't have blood vessels running through the eyeball, since it has to be transparent! If the scaremongers had been saying that cell phones caused glassblower's cataract, they would have had a mechanism. But that isn't the charge. (And, in any case, the power of a cell phone is just way too low to cause this-- you just don't get much heating from the 0.7 to 1 watt average transmit power of a cell phone to cause any damage. Don't stare into a red-hot furnace, though.)

[...] Although I haven't seen enough specific data on cellphones in this regard, I don't expect the effects to be significant.

Seems easy; measure your cellphone with a geiger counter (Accounting for background radiation) and label it with the number of millisiverts you're shooting into your brain while using it (0). Done. Unless, as XKCD points out, it's a banana phone. I wonder how many of those damn hippies have a sliced banana in their granola in the morning. I'd like to see their reaction when it's pointed out that they're getting more radiation from that than their cell phone.

I wonder how many of those damn hippies have a sliced banana in their granola in the morning.

(Sigh)... Why is it always the hippies who take the blame for any San Francisco craziness? The closest things to hippies in SF are the drug addicts on the streets. They're not in control of politics, they're not even in control of themselves. SF and many californians are more concerned about the environment than a lot of other places, but that's not who is pushing for it.

TFA quotes Ellen Marks as a proponent of the bill. Googling her name and cell phones gets you to an op ed piece, and her bio reads

Ellen Marks is a member of Temple Sinai in Oakland, California; a past president of Women of Temple Sinai and of the Sisterhood of Temple Israel in Stockton, California; co-founder with her son Zack of the California Brain Tumor Association; and lead author of the Cell Phone and Brain Cancer Legislative Briefing Book, which has been translated into eight languages, including Hebrew. She is also director of Government and Public Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust.

More to the point, whatever damage is done by radio waves from cellphones is going to be massively outweighed by the barrage of "radiation" coming from that unshielded fusion reactor in the sky we call the sun (not to mention background cosmic radiation).

For the record, "cosmic radiation" is a known factor for introducing errors into computer memory. "A cellphone is nearby" isnt.

IEEE Spectrum did a story on this, and mentioned the studies where people went around homes near power lines and measured the radiation. It turned out that the highest radiation in ordinary homes came from food blenders and electric razors (which are held against the head).

Incidentally, DNA is constantly damaged during normal cell duplication, and constantly repaired by DNA repair enzymes. I think the numbers were in the thousands of errors every time the cell divides. Every infant has about 60 mutations, m

* You may be experiening adverse effects from RADAR if you start having skin burns
* If you feel your organs starting to cook, you should mitigate the damage by leaving the vicinity of the radar device.

Damage is caused by thermal effects, thats it, and you should generally be aware of when that is happening.

You quoted misleading figures that have been out of date for over five years. Analog phones had a max power output of 3 watts, but hand-held transmitters that had their antenna next to the head were always limited to one watt max. Bag phones, which were car phones in a sack, transmitted up to three watts, but the antenna was in the bag. When Motorola came out with their dual mode phone (it slid into a car-mounted bracket for power, audio, and antenna connections), it switched itself to one watt max when in

That's just not true. Microwaves do not cook "from the inside out." That's almost literally an old wives tale. At 2GHz, almost all radiation would be absorbed in the outer layer of skin and re-radiated as heat. Even for EM that can better penetrate solid/fleshy objects, the energy that penetrates will be attenuated because some portion will be absorbed at the exterior, and if the energy at the surface wasn't enough to trigger a pain response, then you probably (definitely) have nothing to worry about.

This whole debate would be a lot more fruitful if at least one side could produce some evidence. There have been many studies on the subject, and I've not heard of one legitimate study that has found any significant statistical link between cell phone usage and cancer. Considering the burden of proof is always on the accuser, the ball is in your court.

I am not making any claim whatsoever regarding the harmfulness of cellphone radiation. I just point out that saying "non-ionizing" is not sufficient refutation of adverse health effects. Non-ionizing radiation can be harmful. The thermal effect is well known and can clearly damage tissue if the radiation is strong enough. Override the safety features of your microwave oven and you'll quickly find out that non-ionizing radiation can indeed damage DNA molecules. Other effects have not been conclusively proven

This whole debate would be a lot more fruitful if at least one side could produce some evidence. There have been many studies on the subject, and I've not heard of one legitimate study that has found any significant statistical link between cell phone usage and cancer.

These two sentences, when written together, make no sense. If many studies have found no harmful effect, than that is evidence that there is no harm. What other evidence do you expect them to provide?

Look, this really isn't hard:1. There is no theoretical reason why cellphone radiation should be harmful.2. There is no empirical evidence that they are harmful.3. There is plenty of empirical evidence that they are not harmful.4. There is no epidemiological evidence that they are harmful (cellphone owners don't get more brain cancer).

You misunderstand me. I agree completely that there is no significant risk from use of cell phone. What I'm saying is that you can never prove that something is not harmful, as you can never perform every possible test for every possible known and unknown vector. You can only prove that something is harmful. You can never provide evidence that something is not harmful, you can only infer that conclusion after a large number of tests have failed to provide any evidence that something is harmful. Hence,

You can't claim something as harmless, nor can you provide evidence to back up that position. All you can do is show a repeated lack of evidence against any potential harm. The point I was trying to make is that no one has ever been able to provide any meaningful evidence of any increased cancer risk associated with cell phone usage. Since only one side can show evidence to their claim, there is no argument at all until such evidence is presented. Without evidence, the only conclusion that can be made i

After a while I realized the most important thing about environmental safety debates: Whoever gets the burden of proof loses.

So most environmental debates are about sticking the other guy with the burden of proof.

I was always looking for a clean argument with overwhelming evidence that would finally refute the other side. Unfortunately, the evidence was never quite that good. If the evidence was clearly irrefutable, there wouldn't be a controversy. The people on

Incorrect. The response to "The adverse health effects (like early beginnings of brain tumors) start showing up after two years." was "Cellphone radiation is non-ionizing.", suggesting that there are no adverse health effects if the radiation is non-ionizing. That claim is false, as shown by documented cases of adverse health effects caused by non-ionizing radiation.

Uh, no. Tumors == Cancer. Below red EM doesn't cause cancer from what we know. You're the one who implied cancer, and he responded to that claim.

The claim was that cell phones have radiation that can damage DNA and cause cancer. That's not true, microwaves don't cause DNA damage, though I suppose cooking you might cause damage to your DNA it's not the radiation that's doing it, it's a side effect of the heat produced. Seeing as how I've never seen a cell phone melt a chocolate bar let alone a person I doubt it's going to cause DNA damage, nor would that be my first concern in that case.

Of course, but as pipe smokers know, the repeated application of abnormal heat DOES cause dna damage, as well as mouth cancer.

Since I'm a stickler on evidence, I don't think the damage from pipe smoking is due to the heat. There are lots of chemicals in pipe smoke that can damage cells, by damaging proteins, DNA, or whatever.

I don't think anyone has ever demonstrated that people who drink hot tea suffer DNA damage or mouth cancer.

Because I'm lazy...The sun produces more heat on your skin than the microwave radiation from your phone. You would need ~200+ phones to make a crappy microwave oven, more like 500+ to make something that COULD warm something. But you'd have to focus them and sync their power output...and really what would be the point.

Oh and that inner ear nerve thing you said was made up or something...

There are no known adverse effects of cell phones. There is no epidemiological data on adverse effects. There has been no increase in cancer rate with cell phones. The largest study done actually showed a slight correlation of a REDUCED rate of cancer with cell phone usage.

That's not entirely true. Cell phones do have adverse health effects. They are known to be substantial contributors to distracted driving accidents that cause thousands of deaths and injuries every year, increasing the risks of accident by a level equal to that created by drunk driving.

If we limit the scope of the claim to first degree adverse health effects, then cell phones have much less of an impact on people, limited to the blunt force trauma caused by phones thrown by angry spouses and the like. But you still can't accurately state that there are no known adverse effects of cell phones.

Had you fully qualified your statement with "directly caused by emitted radiation", then you would have been 100% correct.

I agree entirely with this. The huge numbers of people using cellphones, and continuing to do so over the years, mean that any effects caused by their radiation emissions must be either very small or very slow. We have had a large enough population using them that significant effects would be clearly visible.

That does not mean that there are no effects. But it does mean that they are small compared to the very visible effects of distraction and misuse. If you are not prepared to ban cellphones because of th

They are known to be substantial contributors to distracted driving accidents that cause thousands of deaths and injuries every year

It should be noted that the number of automobile accidents in the USA has declined ~12% over the last two decades, and the number of deaths due to automobile accidents has declined by 17% over the same period.

It should also be noted that traffic death rates have declined even more dramatically by vehicle-miles travelled (~40%), by number of registered drivers (33%), by popul

Times have changed... now it is only older people who have landline phones. Ever notice the huge number of cell phone stores in poor areas? That Walmart, Target, and drug stores dedicate entire endcaps in high-traffic areas to prepaid cell phone cards? Low-income people have some really good tips on how to get cheap cell phone service. Follow their lead and you can save hundreds or thousands each year.

A philosopher is passenger in a car. The car gets into an accident at an intersection. The drivers sue each other.

At the trial, the philosopher testifies that they had the green light. The other driver's lawyer asks the philosopher: "Are you absolutely certain you had the green light?" The philosopher says, "Well, nobody can be absolutely certain of anything."

Then the other driver's lawyer asks his own client: "Are you absolutely certain you had

Citations needed. Also, the question you should be asking is "is there any evidence it's NOT safe." A modified ames test [wikipedia.org] would be easy to do and would be a fast indication if DNA damage is occurring. People have been using cell phones for longer than 2 years, there should be correlative studies showing a link.

If neither of those things has been shown, then you can always say "But you didn't do THIS TEST!!! CONSPIRACY!!!" and people will. If they do a two year test, it will be three years. Or ten.

Warning: This device contains matter, which is known by the state of California to cause warpage of space and time. This device also contains extraordinary amounts of stored energy in its physical matrix. Handle with care.

Warnings don't seem to be very effective for cigarettes. I'm sure they would be much less effective when it comes to cell phones, especially when expressed in terms that 99% of the population doesn't understand (it's just some number). Actually, it might even have opposite effect - buyers might purchase cell phones that have a greater radiation level, with the assumption that more radiation means greater range.

In the first two cases though, the usual lunatic trying to ban them is doing so because it goes against their morals, ethics, beliefs, etc. It's not (usually) based on scientific fact of any dangers that could be lessened, minimized, or eliminated prevented with basic precautions and regulations. While they are entitled to have their own beliefs, they aren't necessarily those of everyone else.

The lunatic trying to ban cell phones is doing so based on unproven scientific "facts", not because of their belie

All San Francisco can do is mandate that cell phones sold in San Francisco have that label. This would most likely simply result in no cell phones being sold in SF; you'd have to go outside the city when you wanted to buy one.

Let's say you run Chris's Cell Phone Store. This law goes into effect. Now, you have to go to the FCC website and find every phone you sell, pay to have labels printed up (or hand scrawl the labels on every phone) and affix them to every phone. You also have to learn about the ratings to answer customer questions. Don't you love it when people waste your time and money for you? It's always "no big deal" when you make other people do your work for you. My answer would be, what's the big deal about you going

Case 1: Company A labels their phone, company B doesn't. Customers looking at a phone from A get scared, look at phone from B and buy it because it doesn't come with the scary warning.

Case 2: Customer looks at various phones in a shop in San Francisco. They all have the scary warning, so the customer doesn't buy. Next time he visits Los Angeles, he goes to a phone shop, looks at all the wonderful phones without a scary warning, and buys one that he likes.

In the end, if mobile phones emit radiation that is dangerous for you, the perfect solution is to use the phone less.

I need to get their customer list, I have a whole yard full of tiger rocks to sell that are specially crafted to protect them from tiger attacks. I know they work because my family has never been attacked by a tiger.

California really doesn't care about science behind labeling, hence the signs in stores that say, "This product contains products known to the state of California to cause cancer." The sign doesn't say known to science, accepted by science, proven by some scientific method - it says that the legislature voted one day and decided it was bad. This causes truly bad chemicals to be mixed in with a larger body of not-so-bad chemicals and that just causes people to ignore all the warnings.

Even if it's not harmful, what reason could you have to be against letting me choose whether or not my GMO food was farmed by Jews? All I'm asking, is that GMO food made on farms where Jewish workers are employed be labeled, and that cell phones manufactured in a facility which employs coloreds be labeled. I just think we should have an informed free marketplace. That's good for everybody, and even chinks have shown a preference for an informed free marketplace.

It's not like I'm trying to outlaw those peoples' products or infringe on your right to do business with Jews, colored, towel-heads, or Catholics. If you're ok with doing business with those people, I don't have any problem with that. It's a free country and I hope your daughter brings one of them home with her. All I'm asking for, is a harmless label and the right to choose. Why's everyone acting like I'm some kind of unreasonable asshole?!? I don't get it!

Very nice job walking the razor's edge between incisive sarcasm and trolling. I feel that you succeeded in making an insightful point (just no mod points left this week). That was positively channeling Jonathan Swift in short form right there.

I suppose it depends on if the labeling is forced, optional, or prohibited. Optional is the most free. Forced is sometimes appropriate for some dangerous products. I can't think of a good reason to prohibit informative labeling.

Some Jews want to choose food that was farmed by other Jews. Specifically, they want to choose food that was farmed and processed by Jews who were supervised by their own rabbi.* And most state laws let them do that.___*It would take more time than I have to properly make fun of these rabbis.

If you or the people who modded you up can't see the difference between singling out one particular group of people for no scientific or rational reason and labelling products that there is at least some convincing evidence should be used with care then I'm not sure it's even worth arguing.

Regardless of the science behind effects of the radiation, its pretty sad to have another instance of corporations throwing money at what was (presumably) the will of the people until it goes away.

Arguably labeling laws are an effective way to provide the individual with power in capitalist system. Individually people don't have power to sway manufacturers, but when provided with information consumers can decide whether they feel its important and if enough people feel similarly it asserts influence on the

You already have every piece of information you need to make an informed decision today.

The facts are a matter of public record. Look up the FCC ID on the label on your cell phone here: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ [fcc.gov] Now, read the documentation that was filed in order to certify that device, and find out which sets of FCC rules it falls under to see the limits it must meet. You can also see the test reports they filed proving their device complied with all applicable rules.